Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[thehog]

Good....that is what TUES are for.....enabling athletes to get back to their natural form

Mark L

In one day? Beating Tony Martin? Umm ok

 

[TheSpud]

So Froome is near an infants age? Got it but hasn't got it.

ummm ok, relevancy?

Another deflection - I never once said Froome is near an infants age. You are the one who started pulling out the kids illnesses. Why don't you just face it - I quoted a page that had 3 reasons why and adult may take Prednisolone:

1 - MS. Froome doesn't have this AFAIK
2 - BD. I said this sounded the nearest to what he might have
3 - Anti-inflammatory. Maybe this is what he had - inflammation of the lungs / chest?

Two of those could be what Froome was treated for. I quoted the dosage for #2, and oh look - the dosage for #3 is between 5 and 60mg / day. In line with what he took.

 

[the sceptic]

Good....that is what TUES are for.....enabling athletes to get back to their natural form

Scep and Hog....both angry because cough medicine works

Mark L

Sure Mark. FRoome went from being so sick that he had to call for an emergency TUE to totally healthy just like that.

I know logic is hard for sky fans, but you are really going off the deep end on this one.

 

[TheSpud]

Mark L said it was reviewed, did he not? I've not seen the reasoned decision. I'd like to see it, wouldn't you?

Well, as I said, I don't expect there to be a RD unless it goes against the fed / rider. Why would there be? And even if there was, why would we see it. WADA made a statement - it was reported on CyclingNews. Are you saying you now don't believe anything reported on the internet?

 

[thehog]

Well, as I said, I don't expect there to be a RD unless it goes against the fed / rider. Why would there be? And even if there was, why would we see it. WADA made a statement - it was reported on CyclingNews. Are you saying you now don't believe anything reported on the internet?

You don't expect?

I've checked 8.10, doesn't say anything with respect to only publishing if goes against fed / rider.

Are you saying you don't believe anything published by WADA?

8.10 WADA shall communicate the reasoned decision of the WADA TUEC promptly to the Athlete and to his/her National Anti-Doping Organization and International Federation (and, if applicable, the Major Event Organization).

 

[daveyt]

Sure Mark. FRoome went from being so sick that he had to call for an emergency TUE to totally healthy just like that.

I know logic is hard for sky fans, but you are really going off the deep end on this one.

He was coughing a lot, the medicine stopped the cough.

Why is that mind boggling?

 

[TheSpud]

You don't expect?

I've checked 8.10, doesn't say anything with respect to only publishing if goes against fed / rider.

Are you saying you don't believe anything published by WADA?

You're right - 8.10 doesn't say that, but 8.9 does. As usual Hog you're quoting out of context:

[font=Verdana,Bold][font=Verdana,Bold] 8.9 [/font][/font]Where the[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]WADA [/font][/font]TUEC reverses a[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]TUE [/font][/font]decision that[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]WADA [/font][/font]has decided in its discretion to review,[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]WADA [/font][/font]may require the[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]Anti-Doping Organization [/font][/font]that made the decision to pay the costs incurred by[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]WADA [/font][/font]in respect of that review.[font=Verdana,Bold][font=Verdana,Bold]
8.10 [/font][/font][font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]WADA [/font][/font]shall communicate the reasoned decision of the[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]WADA [/font][/font]TUEC
promptly to the[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]Athlete [/font][/font]and to his/her[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]National Anti-Doping Organization [/font][/font]and International Federation (and, if applicable, the[font=Verdana,Italic][font=Verdana,Italic]Major Event Organization[/font][/font]).

If you read the whole of section 8 its quite clear that 8.10 follows from 8.9 - its how official documents work.

 

[thehog]

Another deflection - I never once said Froome is near an infants age. You are the one who started pulling out the kids illnesses. Why don't you just face it - I quoted a page that had 3 reasons why and adult may take Prednisolone:

1 - MS. Froome doesn't have this AFAIK
2 - BD. I said this sounded the nearest to what he might have
3 - Anti-inflammatory. Maybe this is what he had - inflammation of the lungs / chest?

Two of those could be what Froome was treated for. I quoted the dosage for #2, and oh look - the dosage for #3 is between 5 and 60mg / day. In line with what he took.

"Could", "maybe", "never said". Very good. Remind me not to go see you next time I'm sick

 

[TheSpud]

"Could", "maybe", "never said". Very good. Remind me not to go see you next time I'm sick

Deflection #4

Why don't you just answer my original question?

 

[thehog]

You're right - 8.10 doesn't say that, but 8.9 does. As usual Hog you're quoting out of context:

If you read the whole of section 8 its quite clear that 8.10 follows from 8.9 - its how official documents work.

So where does it say they do not release the RD?

 

[the sceptic]

"Could", "maybe", "never said". Very good. Remind me not to go see you next time I'm sick

Looks like Martin is back to his old tricks of making threads unbearable.

Think I'll leave until it gets sorted out by the mods.

 

[thehog]

Looks like Martin is back to his old tricks of making threads unbearable.

Think I'll leave until it gets sorted out by the mods.

Yes, noted. Martin back again. Its late as well. So you know what that means...

 

[peloton]

Is this the Walsh thread?

 

[TheSpud]

Its late as well. So you know what that means...

What? Its dark outside???

Or does it mean you are going to deflect and not actually answer the points people have asked you about?

I'm not even asking for links or facts, just why you have made your opinion up that the TUE wasn't reviewed.

And you can't accuse me of trolling or getting personal - I'm not spoiling for a fight, just asking you to justify your position. I think that's fair in a public forum, don't you?

 

[veganrob]

The medicine made him better, Scep, that is why he took it.

Mark L

Actually the meds did not make him better. I helped him race better. Prednisolone will treat the symptoms of the illness which enables the body to go about its business of healing.
About predisolone though, even if one is not ill, taking will then be classified as a PED. Which frankly in regards to Froome that really appears to be the case. That is why it is generally forbidden.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Good....that is what TUES are for.....enabling athletes to get back to their natural form

Scep and Hog....both angry because cough medicine works

Mark L

 

[Granville57]

I believe Froome was prescribed 40mg of Pred (per day probably) which is nearer the upper end of the usual dosage for a human (based on easily researchable information). So, about 0.66mg per Kg (based on Froome being 66Kg) - not exactly out of range for body size.

Yes, 40mg is what we were told.

Froome was permitted to take up to 40mg of the drug a day in tablet form after Team Sky doctor Alan Farrell was given the go ahead by UCI medical director Mario Zorzoli.

I'd love to provide a link, of course, but...



this


thread


is


making


me


sleepy


ZZZZZzzzzzzzz.....

 

[thehog]

Is this the Walsh thread?

It was until whiskey nighty posting took over

 

[ebandit]

What? Its dark outside??

No Spud....let me explain....

Looks like Martin is back to his old tricks of making threads unbearable.

Think I'll leave until it gets sorted out by the mods.

Yes, noted. Martin back again. Its late as well. So you know what that means...

It was until whiskey nighty posting took over

Spud......it's called baiting.....it's what these two do.

As you know Sceptic's opening gambit of 'Martin' is an accusation of sock-puppetry....which he is making yet again even though mods explicitly tell people not to....

Because the mods don't actually do anything about it, Sceptic knows he is free to do it again and again and again (whilst accusing you of being the troll.....yes, I know, amazing isn't it)

....Hog follows up with an implied comment later made explicitly that you are drunk....

....this isn't because of anything to do with your posting, Spud, but because 'Martin' was Irish......and as we all know the racist caricature of the Irish is that they are drunkards


Mark L

 

[sniper]

Is this the Walsh thread?

where moderators fear to tread, apparantly.

 

[ebandit]

.....has anybody else spotted the huge irony in the discussion of Froome's TUE given the context of this thread?????

Mark L

 

[TheSpud]

.....has anybody else spotted the huge irony in the discussion of Froome's TUE given the context of this thread?????

Mark L

You mean the fact that Walsh questioned Skys ethics when the TUE was leaked?

Not lost on me at all.

 

[sniper]

You mean the fact that Walsh questioned Skys ethics when the TUE was leaked?

Not lost on me at all.

he hardly had any other choice did he, being left in his underpants by the TUE leak.
but yes, he did say some wiser things in that article.
something about Sky talking the talk but not walking the walk (which, to be sure, was clear to anybody with half a brain well prior to the TUE leak).

does anybody have a link to the full article? (not just the snippets reproduced in other media)

 

[ebandit]

You mean the fact that Walsh questioned Skys ethics when the TUE was leaked?

Not lost on me at all.

Exactly

He didn't have to say anything.......and if he is what some of the more hysteric posters in here claim he is then he wouldnt have said what he did.....

But he did.


Mark L

 

[TourOfSardinia]

does anybody have a link to the full article? (not just the snippets reproduced in other media)

Paywall (of silence?) here:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1425341.ece

See also digger's post here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1498051&postcount=3999